3 ms·

It isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated

It isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated. If I accidentally use a patented algorithm, that isn't a defense, and it isn't in this case. What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop? What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.

sampo 7y ago
> It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?
- benj111 7y ago
  They aren't. Which is why it isn't FUD.
- bitreality 7y ago
  This question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life. Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year. Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
  - sampo 7y ago
    > Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds [...] is morally wrong Why is it morally wrong? Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
    - danaris 7y ago
      "We've been doing it for (years/decades/centuries)" is not, in itself, an argument that something is safe, wise, or moral. If you wish to argue that imposing patents preventing farmers from replanting seeds is moral, then it seems like it would make sense to actually make an argument that addresses the morality in any way, shape, or form.
      - CodiePetersen 7y ago
        They signed the contract when they bought the seed. They entered the agreement willingly. No different then when you skip past the EULA on a video game saying you won't distribute it or crack it.
        danaris 7y ago
        That...has absolutely nothing to do with patents. Or morality. The contract is directly between the farmers and Monsanto; patents are filed with the government, and have force no matter what contracts exist. And "they signed the contract" is a purely legal argument, it has no moral force. Particularly given your apt analogy to EULAs, indicating clearly that the large companies create contracts that are a) guaranteed to provide disproportionate benefits to them, and b) effectively impossible for laypeople to understand without assistance. Sure, it's legal for them to create contracts like this...but would you really argue that it's moral?
        CodiePetersen 7y ago
        I said contract because you used patent incorrectly. You think the patent is what stops farmers from replanting but it's the contract and the licensing. The patent stops other companies from using the genes to create their own seed. (I'm incorrect here. Just took a look at Monsanto's patent page and they say they do use it to assert breeding rights. I guess the laws around DNA aren't defined enough for licensing and contracts alone.) And yes it is moral. They are not under durress. There are plenty of competitive viable alternatives. The contract is very clear in the farmers inability to replant as so many are quick to point out. And all parties consented. Farmer gets a product, business gets money. Business makes sure they have a future by making sure the farmer doesn't regrow their product and sell to other farmers. Tell me why it isn't moral. Are you advocating that patents and product licenses are immoral.
  - CodiePetersen 7y ago
    Uh what. They've never sold terminator seeds. Who told you they did. And if they did why would replanting even matter if it doesn't work.
  - CodiePetersen 7y ago
    What about data then. Data can be copied and moved between devices. Should we not have IP laws around digital assets either.
- tuukkah 7y ago
  All patents are supposed to be exhausted after first sale. Are you not familiar with this or are you saying it's not applicable here or that it's not interpreted correctly? "The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U....

sampo 7y ago

> It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?

benj111 7y ago
They aren't. Which is why it isn't FUD.
bitreality 7y ago
This question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life. Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year. Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
- sampo 7y ago
  > Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds [...] is morally wrong Why is it morally wrong? Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
  - danaris 7y ago
    "We've been doing it for (years/decades/centuries)" is not, in itself, an argument that something is safe, wise, or moral. If you wish to argue that imposing patents preventing farmers from replanting seeds is moral, then it seems like it would make sense to actually make an argument that addresses the morality in any way, shape, or form.
    - CodiePetersen 7y ago
      They signed the contract when they bought the seed. They entered the agreement willingly. No different then when you skip past the EULA on a video game saying you won't distribute it or crack it.
      - danaris 7y ago
        That...has absolutely nothing to do with patents. Or morality. The contract is directly between the farmers and Monsanto; patents are filed with the government, and have force no matter what contracts exist. And "they signed the contract" is a purely legal argument, it has no moral force. Particularly given your apt analogy to EULAs, indicating clearly that the large companies create contracts that are a) guaranteed to provide disproportionate benefits to them, and b) effectively impossible for laypeople to understand without assistance. Sure, it's legal for them to create contracts like this...but would you really argue that it's moral?
        CodiePetersen 7y ago
        I said contract because you used patent incorrectly. You think the patent is what stops farmers from replanting but it's the contract and the licensing. The patent stops other companies from using the genes to create their own seed. (I'm incorrect here. Just took a look at Monsanto's patent page and they say they do use it to assert breeding rights. I guess the laws around DNA aren't defined enough for licensing and contracts alone.) And yes it is moral. They are not under durress. There are plenty of competitive viable alternatives. The contract is very clear in the farmers inability to replant as so many are quick to point out. And all parties consented. Farmer gets a product, business gets money. Business makes sure they have a future by making sure the farmer doesn't regrow their product and sell to other farmers. Tell me why it isn't moral. Are you advocating that patents and product licenses are immoral.
- CodiePetersen 7y ago
  Uh what. They've never sold terminator seeds. Who told you they did. And if they did why would replanting even matter if it doesn't work.
- CodiePetersen 7y ago
  What about data then. Data can be copied and moved between devices. Should we not have IP laws around digital assets either.
tuukkah 7y ago
All patents are supposed to be exhausted after first sale. Are you not familiar with this or are you saying it's not applicable here or that it's not interpreted correctly? "The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U....